+Άρθρο 18 Ταξινόμηση συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ και κυβερνοαπειλών
---+Άρθρο 18 1
---+Άρθρο 18 2
---+Άρθρο 18 3
---+Άρθρο 18 4
|
Άρθρο 18 Ταξινόμηση συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ και κυβερνοαπειλών
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Κανονισμός |
|
Άρθρο 18 1
|
1. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες ταξινομούν τα συμβάντα που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ και προσδιορίζουν τις επιπτώσεις τους με βάση τα ακόλουθα κριτήρια:
|
α)
|
τον αριθμό και/ή τη συνάφεια των επηρεαζόμενων πελατών ή χρηματοοικονομικών αντισυμβαλλομένων και, κατά περίπτωση, το ύψος ή τον αριθμό των συναλλαγών που επηρεάζονται από τη διαταραχή που προκλήθηκε από το συμβάν που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ, και κατά πόσο το εν λόγω συμβάν έχει επιπτώσεις στη φήμη,
|
|
β)
|
τη διάρκεια του συμβάντος που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ, συμπεριλαμβανομένου του χρόνου διακοπής της υπηρεσίας,
|
|
γ)
|
τη γεωγραφική εξάπλωση των περιοχών που επηρεάζονται από το συμβάν που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ, ιδίως εάν επηρεάζει περισσότερα από δύο κράτη μέλη,
|
|
δ)
|
τις απώλειες δεδομένων που συνεπάγεται το συμβάν που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ, όσον αφορά τη διαθεσιμότητα, τη γνησιότητα, την ακεραιότητα ή την εμπιστευτικότητα των δεδομένων,
|
|
ε)
|
την κρισιμότητα των επηρεαζόμενων υπηρεσιών, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των συναλλαγών και των δραστηριοτήτων της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας,
|
|
στ)
|
τις οικονομικές επιπτώσεις, ιδίως τις άμεσες και έμμεσες δαπάνες και απώλειες, του συμβάντος που σχετίζεται με τις ΤΠΕ σε απόλυτους και σχετικούς όρους.
|
|
|
Άρθρο 18 2
|
2. Οι χρηματοοικονομικές οντότητες ταξινομούν τις κυβερνοαπειλές ως σημαντικές με βάση την κρισιμότητα των υπηρεσιών που διατρέχουν κίνδυνο, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των συναλλαγών και των δραστηριοτήτων της χρηματοοικονομικής οντότητας, του αριθμού και/ή της συνάφειας των στοχευόμενων πελατών ή χρηματοοικονομικών αντισυμβαλλομένων και της γεωγραφικής εξάπλωσης των περιοχών που διατρέχουν κίνδυνο.
|
|
Άρθρο 18 3
|
3. Οι ΕΕΑ, μέσω της μεικτής επιτροπής των ΕΕΑ και σε συνεννόηση με την ΕΚΤ και τον ENISA, καταρτίζουν κοινά σχέδια ρυθμιστικών τεχνικών προτύπων, προκειμένου να προσδιορίσουν περαιτέρω τα εξής:
|
α)
|
τα κριτήρια που καθορίζονται στην παράγραφο 1, συμπεριλαμβανομένων κατώτατων ορίων σημαντικότητας για τον προσδιορισμό μειζόνων συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ ή, κατά περίπτωση, μειζόνων λειτουργικών συμβάντων ή συμβάντων ασφάλειας που σχετίζονται με πληρωμές, τα οποία υπόκεινται στην υποχρέωση αναφοράς που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 19 παράγραφος 1,
|
|
β)
|
τα κριτήρια που πρέπει να εφαρμόζουν οι αρμόδιες αρχές για την αξιολόγηση της συνάφειας μειζόνων συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ ή, κατά περίπτωση, μειζόνων λειτουργικών συμβάντων ή συμβάντων ασφάλειας που σχετίζονται με πληρωμές στις σχετικές αρμόδιες αρχές σε άλλα κράτη μέλη, καθώς και τα στοιχεία των αναφορών μειζόνων συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ ή, κατά περίπτωση, μειζόνων λειτουργικών συμβάντων ή συμβάντων ασφάλειας που σχετίζονται με πληρωμές, τα οποία πρέπει να κοινοποιούνται σε άλλες αρμόδιες αρχές σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 19 παράγραφοι 6 και 7,
|
|
γ)
|
τα κριτήρια που καθορίζονται στην παράγραφο 2 του παρόντος άρθρου, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των κατώτατων ορίων υψηλής σημαντικότητας για τον προσδιορισμό σημαντικών κυβερνοαπειλών.
|
|
|
Άρθρο 18 4
|
4. Κατά την κατάρτιση των κοινών σχεδίων ρυθμιστικών τεχνικών προτύπων που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 3 του παρόντος άρθρου, οι ΕΕΑ λαμβάνουν υπόψη τα κριτήρια που καθορίζονται στο άρθρο 4 παράγραφος 2 καθώς και τα διεθνή πρότυπα, τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές και τις προδιαγραφές που αναπτύσσει και δημοσιεύει ο ENISA, συμπεριλαμβανομένων, κατά περίπτωση, των προδιαγραφών που ισχύουν για άλλους οικονομικούς τομείς. Για τους σκοπούς της εφαρμογής των κριτηρίων που καθορίζονται στο άρθρο 4 παράγραφος 2, οι ΕΕΑ λαμβάνουν δεόντως υπόψη την ανάγκη οι πολύ μικρές και οι μικρές και μεσαίες επιχειρήσεις να κινητοποιήσουν επαρκείς πόρους και ικανότητες για να διασφαλίσουν την ταχεία διαχείριση συμβάντων που σχετίζονται με τις ΤΠΕ.
Οι ΕΕΑ υποβάλλουν τα εν λόγω κοινά σχέδια ρυθμιστικών τεχνικών προτύπων στην Επιτροπή έως τις 17 Ιανουαρίου 2024.
Ανατίθεται στην Επιτροπή η εξουσία να συμπληρώνει τον παρόντα κανονισμό εκδίδοντας τα ρυθμιστικά τεχνικά πρότυπα που αναφέρονται στην παράγραφο 3, σύμφωνα με τα άρθρα 10 έως 14 των κανονισμών (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1093/2010, (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1094/2010 και (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1095/2010.
|
,
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικά πρότυπα
Πρότυπα
| Πηγή |
Απαίτηση |
|
SCF
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Incident Handling
Description
Mechanisms exist to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Incident Response Plan (IRP)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Integrated Incident Response Program (IIRP)
∙ ITIL 4 (https://axelos.com) ∙ Incident and problem management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Incident response-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Incident response management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel facilitate prompt response to suspected or confirmed security incidents, including timely notification to affected stakeholders.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel operate facilitate basic forensic investigations in the event of a suspected or confirmed security incident.
▪ The IRP contains eDiscovery processes to support Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) requirements for eDiscovery practices.
▪ IT personnel support incident response operations by provisioning and deprovisioning incident responders with temporary emergency accounts.
Level 3 Well Defined
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with IRO domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Cybersecurity personnel operate an incident response capability using a documented and tested Incident Response Plan (IRP) to facilitate incident management operations that cover preparation, detection and analysis, containment, eradication and recovery.
▪ An incident response team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain IRO domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of incident response operations (e.g., incident management software).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with IRO domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to cover:
(1) Preparation;
(2) Automated event detection or manual incident report intake;
(3) Analysis;
(4) Containment;
(5) Eradication; and
(6) Recovery.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Incident Response (IRO) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|